Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion

Posted on: March 9, 2012 - 1:30am

The Theist

Posts: 217

Joined: 2012-03-09

Offline

Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion

Hello everyone,

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

What exactly is the debate here? I see a lot of semantics, I see the typical shifting of goal posts, but I don't see any real effort to demonstrate the existence and attributes of god. Who is this god? What evidence leads you to conclude it exists? How does it direct your life?

lol, I've been trying to find this out since my second post on this topic... good luck getting an answer

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

What exactly is the debate here? I see a lot of semantics, I see the typical shifting of goal posts, but I don't see any real effort to demonstrate the existence and attributes of god. Who is this god? What evidence leads you to conclude it exists? How does it direct your life?

lol, I've been trying to find this out since my second post on this topic... good luck getting an answer

The thread is about atheism. You know . . . the disbelief in a god or gods.

Hello again Theist. I couldn't help but to notice you like to stick within the threads that you started. Even in response to Luminon's last post, you started your own. Why not just reply within his thread. You did however jump over to his thread just to make sure others took notice that you had started another one just to respond. I also couldn't help but to notice that you sound much like someone called "ihadathougt", who only stuck around very very briefly. You wouldn't be playing sock-puppets now would you? Forgive me if I am mistaken.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

Beelzebub is an alteration of Baal-Zebub (Owner of the Flies). The early Christians had a play on words with the non Biblical Hebrew word zevel, which means dung, changing the name to the satirical "Owner or Lord Of The Dung." Shit.

I don't know why they use Hendrix as the Guitar God, it was Clapton who first had the title. Graffiti was posted all over London saying: "Clapton Is God."

Clapton is God, I'm a theist now. A theist who will attack all supernatural gods because they are nonsense.

Well, actually, fun and sarcasm aside, you make a good point. At least indirectly. Those with faith have to remind themselves that the demons have faith and yet shudder. The demons know there is a god, they don't need faith. They have faith in the sense that they know they are fighting a loosing battle. Just because you are a theist, which means you believe in God or gods, doesn't mean that you are on their side.

Do you see that, Sapient? You see that battle line drawn in the sand washed away with what is really rational?

Hello again Theist. I couldn't help but to notice you like to stick within the threads that you started. Even in response to Luminon's last post, you started your own. Why not just reply within his thread. You did however jump over to his thread just to make sure others took notice that you had started another one just to respond. I also couldn't help but to notice that you sound much like someone called "ihadathougt", who only stuck around very very briefly. You wouldn't be playing sock-puppets now would you? Forgive me if I am mistaken.

[Sigh] Look . . . can you cut me some slack? I got nothing against you people or what you believe. I don't want to change you. But I don't want to spend my time bitching back and forth about petty shit and egos. I don't mind getting down and dirty but don't bust my ass just because you can't argue with me.

Besides, you are the one who suggested Lum post the video in a new thread and it sounded like a good idea to me.

Sock puppets? I have never heard of ihadathought, but I am David Henson. That has already been established.

If you want to view it as "preaching" I think that is pathetic and stupid.

Galileo "The earth rotates around the sun"

Church "stop preaching, we know the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth".

You are not going to get away with that bullshit here. I see nothing wrong with, AND EVERYTHING VALUABLE about facing people with reality. If our species never questioned social norms our species would have never left the caves. Get over yourself and grow up.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Most people, the vast majority, would define 'god' as an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent entity, a supernatural being in the 'truest' sense of the word.

Further, they give this being attributes such as 'creator'.

Now you, attempt to reset the paradigm, set up your own little game as it were, then deride those who don't agree with your scenerio.

Yours is a fantasy, a bizarre manifestation of some inner dialogue in which you naturally are always the victor.

To be blunt, you've done nothing but waste time and bandwidth with self aggrandizing and self congratulatory tripe.

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

If you want to view it as "preaching" I think that is pathetic and stupid.

Galileo "The earth rotates around the sun"

Church "stop preaching, we know the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth".

You are not going to get away with that bullshit here. I see nothing wrong with, AND EVERYTHING VALUABLE about facing people with reality. If our species never questioned social norms our species would have never left the caves. Get over yourself and grow up.

You don't know much about science, do you? The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin insisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

The modern day atheist seems oblivious to this portion of science history. They read somewhere or were indoctrinated with the idea that the Bible stated that the earth was the center of the universe, when the Bible said nothing of the kind. The verses which the church used to support their theory were Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Psalm 104:5. Metaphoric terms which we still use today. This is the sort of outdated ignorance one has to keep in mind when responding to the atheistic skeptic, because it is the primary obfuscation of accurate knowledge of the Bible. Not very scientific, to say the least.

If you want to view it as "preaching" I think that is pathetic and stupid.

Galileo "The earth rotates around the sun"

Church "stop preaching, we know the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth".

You are not going to get away with that bullshit here. I see nothing wrong with, AND EVERYTHING VALUABLE about facing people with reality. If our species never questioned social norms our species would have never left the caves. Get over yourself and grow up.

You don't know much about science, do you? The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin insisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

The modern day atheist seems oblivious to this portion of science history. They read somewhere or were indoctrinated with the idea that the Bible stated that the earth was the center of the universe, when the Bible said nothing of the kind. The verses which the church used to support their theory were Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Psalm 104:5. Metaphoric terms which we still use today. This is the sort of outdated ignorance one has to keep in mind when responding to the atheistic skeptic, because it is the primary obfuscation of accurate knowledge of the Bible. Not very scientific, to say the least.

I look to Genesis for the biblical view of a geocentric universe, wherein the god places the earth in the center of the firmament, then puts the sun and the moon around it for light, and as an afterthought, makes the rest of the stars in the universe...

I think it's more accurate, more HONEST to say that yes, Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle, and that his confirmation bias played a huge factor. It's easy to agree with what you already hold true.

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

If you want to view it as "preaching" I think that is pathetic and stupid.

Galileo "The earth rotates around the sun"

Church "stop preaching, we know the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth".

You are not going to get away with that bullshit here. I see nothing wrong with, AND EVERYTHING VALUABLE about facing people with reality. If our species never questioned social norms our species would have never left the caves. Get over yourself and grow up.

You don't know much about science, do you? The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin insisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

The modern day atheist seems oblivious to this portion of science history. They read somewhere or were indoctrinated with the idea that the Bible stated that the earth was the center of the universe, when the Bible said nothing of the kind. The verses which the church used to support their theory were Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Psalm 104:5. Metaphoric terms which we still use today. This is the sort of outdated ignorance one has to keep in mind when responding to the atheistic skeptic, because it is the primary obfuscation of accurate knowledge of the Bible. Not very scientific, to say the least.

Let me take this opportunity, as a side issue, I hope you are not trying to sneak in the argument "This historical figure was smart, so my deity is real"

If either Galileo or Aquinas had been Muslim, would you argue for the existence of Allah?

Religious people of all labels, and we even have a Buddhist here, who try to prop up their club by pointing to their club writings going "this seems to fit with nature".

The Egyptians, just like humans today can, pointed to the sun, and said "That is the sun". SO WHAT, it did not mean they knew what the sun was made of at that time.

It sickens me today that humans of any label still try to treat their writings/and or holy books, as science textbooks.

NO, no ancient religious writing OF ANY LABEL should be treated like a modern science textbook because they are NOT.

A broken clock can be right twice a day, but it doesn't make god/s real.

Newton got some science right, but he also postulated alchemy. And that smartness would not make his personal pet god real anymore than it would if a Muslim had been the one to discover what he did, instead of him.

Ancient Arabs invented algebra, that doesn't make Allah real.

NO religious club of those times invented science. Any thing that hold true today was not the result of gods or clubs being valid, but because HUMANS tested shit. Their labels were not required at that time to make those observations.

Scientific method is not dependent on holding a religious label OF ANY KIND. And saying the "the sky is blue" does not demonstrate you know why we scientifically perceive it as being blue.

Muslims have attempted to quote the Koran while pointing at Red Nebulas as proof that Mohamed knew about space expansion because of "red sky".

NO, that was meant back then to mean "the blood of dissenters will turn the sky red".

I fucking HATE this fallacious tactic. No one can retrofit what we know now in modern science which is independent of labels or the personal whims of even scientists to prop up ancient myths. Science is independent of labels.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Nice vid. I like seeing celebrities advocating atheism. An interesting tidbit about Ricky Gervais, besides his public atheism, is that he has a degree in philosophy from University College London. He also has a cartoon show on HBO called The Ricky Gervais Show, wherethey talk about various topics, including some philosophy.

I laughed so hard that my dog in the other room woke up from its deep slumber of chasing rabbits and came in to check on me. I guess it thought I was having a good time so it wanted to see what was so funny.

Clapton is God, I'm a theist now. A theist who will attack all supernatural gods because they are nonsense.

Well, actually, fun and sarcasm aside, you make a good point. At least indirectly. Those with faith have to remind themselves that the demons have faith and yet shudder. The demons know there is a god, they don't need faith. They have faith in the sense that they know they are fighting a loosing battle. Just because you are a theist, which means you believe in God or gods, doesn't mean that you are on their side.

Religious people of all labels, and we even have a Buddhist here, who try to prop up their club by pointing to their club writings going "this seems to fit with nature".

1 - you use labels and you are a militant atheist.

2 - thanks for noticing me

3 - the only club i'm a member of is the "he-man-woman-haters-club" and I got my secret decoder ring to prove it

4 - I reject all buddhist writings.

5 - you still haven't answered my questions.. like "what is beyond this universe?"

"Militant atheist" yep, the fallacious slur used by people who cannot defend their positions. Being Buddhist doesn't give you a pass either.

Get over yourself, merely saying "bullshit" on ANYONE'S CLAIM does NOT make me militant. Otherwise Jefferson was "Militant" too for equating the virgin birth to Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter.

You are merely having an emotional reaction to my word choice. But the truth still remains that the "label" Buddhist was never a requirement for evolution to occur and Buddhism wont be around after our species goes extinct.

I am not going to have you arrested or blow myself up trying to kill you, that IS militant. I'm not blowing up your statues or monuments.

If you simply don't like my word choice, say that, but not liking my word choice does not make me militant.

And as far as what lies beyond the universe, DON'T KNOW, but that STILL does not require superstitious gap answer as a placecard. If anything will have the capability to figure that out, it will be scientific method, not ancient myth, not yours, not any.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

NO you dont, aren't you the one who pointed out the Nobel Truths? The Nobel Truths are not Hindu or Christian or Zoroastrian writings. They arn't the writings of the Ancient Egyptians. If they were written by Buddha and you buy into them, you ARE a Buddhist.

You just get angry at me because I am pointing out that Buddha was not a psychologist because you like the pretty words he wrote. All he said was shit happens, accept that shit happens, try to avoid harmful shit. Being the first to put it in the words he did, or making those words popular, would not have changed evolution if they had never been written.

You want to believe falsely "I am not like the others"

Then try to pull the same "Since you don't know, I am right by default" crap. Do I know what lies beyond the Universe? No, but gap answers such as "Jesus" "Vishnu" "Allah" "Pantheism" "Buddha" will NOT fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. Those are human predilections, not tools.

But do not use that fallacious slur of "militant" with me merely because you have an emotional reaction to my word choice. I am not super human and I shit and pee and will die just like anyone else.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith? If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

What is faith in the most general of terms?

Faith is a proposition that isn't derived from other propositions; it's believed without being reasoned for. In other words, an assumption.

That's what I thought. So if one has faith in a god and if there is no evidence to prove the existence then it can't be reasoned?

If there's no scientific evidence for a Creator it can still be reasoned for by making inferences from scientific, subjective, and publicly observable data. It's called theology, and I'd rather debate a theologian than a fideist. The theologian isn't using faith to believe in God, he's using reason. But I've yet to hear a convincing argument.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

I do think of a god as being a supernatural being with mystical powers. When I think of the one god, well, then I think of the prime mover concept with his omni attributes.

As to what a god actually is - I don't think anyone knows. It's just a label for a collection of ideas, feelings and wishes. Mythical hero, daddy, master of the universe, inner voice, best friend, etc. All utterly anthropocentric.

As for what an atheist is, I think of all of us here as agnostic atheists. The only non-agnostic atheist we've had was I think, Rednef. Or maybe it was Marquis. One of those two strongly opinionated gents. Their argument was cohesive, though. I think we are simply people who maintain there is insufficient proof of anyone's hypothetical external first cause.

I'm not sure, Dave, why you made an effort to prove that ordinary things could be gods. Tummies, noo-noos, Ducati motorcycles. They could be metaphorical 'gods' but I think we'd agree they are nothing more than consuming human passions.

It's interesting though; that I and others, including theists; define god using a collection of non-qualities that are indefinable.

Along these lines, how would you define a theist, David? What commonalities do theists possess, in your opinion?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Religious people of all labels, and we even have a Buddhist here, who try to prop up their club by pointing to their club writings going "this seems to fit with nature".

1 - you use labels and you are a militant atheist.

2 - thanks for noticing me

3 - the only club i'm a member of is the "he-man-woman-haters-club" and I got my secret decoder ring to prove it

4 - I reject all buddhist writings.

5 - you still haven't answered my questions.. like "what is beyond this universe?"

"Militant atheist" yep, the fallacious slur used by people who cannot defend their positions. Being Buddhist doesn't give you a pass either.

Get over yourself, merely saying "bullshit" on ANYONE'S CLAIM does NOT make me militant. Otherwise Jefferson was "Militant" too for equating the virgin birth to Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter.

You are merely having an emotional reaction to my word choice. But the truth still remains that the "label" Buddhist was never a requirement for evolution to occur and Buddhism wont be around after our species goes extinct.

I am not going to have you arrested or blow myself up trying to kill you, that IS militant. I'm not blowing up your statues or monuments.

If you simply don't like my word choice, say that, but not liking my word choice does not make me militant.

And as far as what lies beyond the universe, DON'T KNOW, but that STILL does not require superstitious gap answer as a placecard. If anything will have the capability to figure that out, it will be scientific method, not ancient myth, not yours, not any.

NO you dont, aren't you the one who pointed out the Nobel Truths? The Nobel Truths are not Hindu or Christian or Zoroastrian writings. They arn't the writings of the Ancient Egyptians. If they were written by Buddha and you buy into them, you ARE a Buddhist.

You just get angry at me because I am pointing out that Buddha was not a psychologist because you like the pretty words he wrote. All he said was shit happens, accept that shit happens, try to avoid harmful shit. Being the first to put it in the words he did, or making those words popular, would not have changed evolution if they had never been written.

You want to believe falsely "I am not like the others"

Then try to pull the same "Since you don't know, I am right by default" crap. Do I know what lies beyond the Universe? No, but gap answers such as "Jesus" "Vishnu" "Allah" "Pantheism" "Buddha" will NOT fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. Those are human predilections, not tools.

But do not use that fallacious slur of "militant" with me merely because you have an emotional reaction to my word choice. I am not super human and I shit and pee and will die just like anyone else.

I don't know if I should continue being sarcastic with you or if I should just keep going... I'll think I'll stop.

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith? If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

What is faith in the most general of terms?

Faith is a proposition that isn't derived from other propositions; it's believed without being reasoned for. In other words, an assumption.

That's what I thought. So if one has faith in a god and if there is no evidence to prove the existence then it can't be reasoned?

If there's no scientific evidence for a Creator it can still be reasoned for by making inferences from scientific, subjective, and publicly observable data. It's called theology, and I'd rather debate a theologian than a fideist. The theologian isn't using faith to believe in God, he's using reason. But I've yet to hear a convincing argument.

If there is no scientific evidence for a creator then how can you make inferences from scientific data?

I do think of a god as being a supernatural being with mystical powers. When I think of the one god, well, then I think of the prime mover concept with his omni attributes.

You know that those attributes have primarily been established by apostate Christianity? They sort of make God into an unapproachable. You can use the words omnipotent and omniscient much like you use the term omnivore. An omnivore doesn't actually eat everything, does it? The term omnipresent is wrong because God has a fixed position in heaven.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As to what a god actually is - I don't think anyone knows. It's just a label for a collection of ideas, feelings and wishes. Mythical hero, daddy, master of the universe, inner voice, best friend, etc. All utterly anthropocentric.

People tend to think of a god as this. A god is this and this only. A supernatural being. Hello God. Hey God. They don't understand that those Gods have names. They think there is just God, and any other application is to a metaphorical replacement for this God. 'Oh, Eric Clapton is a God to me!' or 'I didn't realize Professor Lagonavitch was your God!'

They don't realize that the word god applied to anything or anyone that was mighty or venerated. When a primitive picked up a piece of wood or stone and worshiped it or imagined some special power, either symbolic or real to the beholder or representing some external power source which he attributed might, that thing was a god. People can't get that modern myopic definition of God out of their head. 'Ha! Ha! Poop can be god! Duh!' Some primitive man coming upon a dry heap of buffalo shit and discovers its the only thing around he can get to burn to cook on or light and heat his world, yeah. The Poop becomes a god. They can't get that the same look towards the poop is the same as to Jehovah in the sense that in their eyes they are both very important in some way to the beholder.

Jehovah's Witnesses will often need counseling from elders in the congregation because some trivial or mundane past time becomes their God. This means that something like knitting, or boating, or gaming, or hunting, or TV or anything that becomes more important to the JW than Jehovah. Her reading gets in the way of her attendance at meetings, her study, her field service. The Jehovah's Witnesses understand this, they wouldn't be at all confused by my definition of god.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As for what an atheist is, I think of all of us here as agnostic atheists. The only non-agnostic atheist we've had was I think, Rednef. Or maybe it was Marquis. One of those two strongly opinionated gents. Their argument was cohesive, though. I think we are simply people who maintain there is insufficient proof of anyone's hypothetical external first cause.

Heh. Well . . . I guess that's one way to look at it. Really, to me, having studied this stuff pretty extensively for nearly two decades, and having known atheists and having been one for most of my life, I can say . . . it isn't about proof in as much as you want proof, but rather that you don't. Other than being almost completely uninformed that is why there is always such a vehement protest to my definition of gods. They don't just ignore it and dismiss it as stupid, they wrestle with it, and deny it and laugh at it, and ridicule it.

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm not sure, Dave, why you made an effort to prove that ordinary things could be gods. Tummies, noo-noos, Ducati motorcycles. They could be metaphorical 'gods' but I think we'd agree they are nothing more than consuming human passions.

I did it because it needed to be done. The things I wrote here were true. And they are important to a fuller comprehension of what it means to be a god, what a god is. My response to the video is a good example of how it becomes something more important than just the common definition of atheism. The concept of a god or gods is a very simple one and people are blinded to it by a narrow perception presented through ignorance and superstition.

Atheistextremist wrote:

It's interesting though; that I and others, including theists; define god using a collection of non-qualities that are indefinable.

Yeah.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Along these lines, how would you define a theist, David? What commonalities do theists possess, in your opinion?

Well keep in mind that I take my name from the story on my website. Originally the story was to be called The Atheist, but it didn't have the same punch to it, the logo didn't look as good [Laughs, though it is true]. To me, simply, theist means for gods and atheist means against gods. I try and avoid overusing or even using at all much of the terminology describing religious schools of thought. You know, I hear someone like Jean, I noticed right off, uses those terms like some over intellectualized prescription to something that should be really simple. "These people are monotheistic." Well, not really, they are henotheistic, "And these people believe in the great white buffalo poo, so they are albinosynceruscafferexcrementalist." That's just bullshit, isn't it?

That question coming from you is like a trap set in the wilderness, the bait of which with the smallest insight, I know I should avoid.

Everyone has faith, what you are asking me if I have faith in something you don't believe in. The faith I have in the Bible is that it is a remarkably preserved work, that it is a good enough copy of God's inspired word to those to whom it is addressed in the time of its having been written, and for us to see as an example.

It says that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Everyday stuff, that. Otherwise you live in perpetual fear of the unknown. You are constantly thrown off track by surprises, and nothing works out for you.

Having learned the Bible and it's trustworthiness I have faith in that what it says is true and what it promises is true just as I would have faith in an old friend who was trustworthy. It isn't blind.

That question coming from you is like a trap set in the wilderness, the bait of which with the smallest insight, I know I should avoid.

Everyone has faith, what you are asking me if I have faith in something you don't believe in. The faith I have in the Bible is that it is a remarkably preserved work, that it is a good enough copy of God's inspired word to those to whom it is addressed in the time of its having been written, and for us to see as an example.

It says that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Everyday stuff, that. Otherwise you live in perpetual fear of the unknown. You are constantly thrown off track by surprises, and nothing works out for you.

Having learned the Bible and it's trustworthiness I have faith in that what it says is true and what it promises is true just as I would have faith in an old friend who was trustworthy. It isn't blind.

As I may have said. What you actually are is a disingenuous hypocrite. You clearly ascribe to the Judeo-Christian god of Abraham, yet you toss up a smokescreen of idiotic false definitions and then claim it's what WE must accept as 'ours'. And sonny... faith is a mental defect masquerading as a virtue.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

As I may have said. What you actually are is a disingenuous hypocrite.

You clearly ascribe to the Judeo-Christian god of Abraham, yet you toss up a smokescreen of idiotic false definitions and then claim it's what WE must accept as 'ours'. And sonny... faith is a mental defect masquerading as a virtue.

LC >;-}>

I am the disingenuous hypocrite? You are the fool protesting something that doesn't exist!

Most of us on this site do not. We don't need faith when we can use reality to determine our positions. Faith is what you use when you can't prove something. If I can't prove something or don't have good reason to believe it, I don't. Saying I use faith is more offensive to me than calling me smug and dumb.

That question coming from you is like a trap set in the wilderness, the bait of which with the smallest insight, I know I should avoid.

Everyone has faith, what you are asking me if I have faith in something you don't believe in. The faith I have in the Bible is that it is a remarkably preserved work, that it is a good enough copy of God's inspired word to those to whom it is addressed in the time of its having been written, and for us to see as an example.

It says that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Everyday stuff, that. Otherwise you live in perpetual fear of the unknown. You are constantly thrown off track by surprises, and nothing works out for you.

Having learned the Bible and it's trustworthiness I have faith in that what it says is true and what it promises is true just as I would have faith in an old friend who was trustworthy. It isn't blind.

Very perceptive. I was actually going to give you a question which I throw out at almost any theist who claims to be a person of faith, but it wasn't an devilish type of trap made to back stab you. It is based on observations I have made over the years of discussions of faith.

As for faith, well, no. I believe faith is like guessing what is in a box on a planet, in another solar system, in another galaxy of another universe. You know nothing about the box (size, smell, movement, materials, etc).

For me, I use educated guesses based on previous experiences. I consider this, what you might call faith, more like tossing a coin or rolling a d20 and trying to guess what the number will end up being. I know various things like (it's a 2-sided coin) or (it's a d20) and that gives me a percentage to guess what the result might me.

Faith in religion gives you none of that first hand information to make an educated guess. At least people like Galileo provides text about mathematics and we can study those subjects and test the writings today.

Faith in your "bible" is fine for you, but when a person examines the history of human nature, politics and religion one must make an educated guess that stories have been tampered with through the thousands of years. We already know that the Egyptians did not keep slaves to build the pyramids so the entire story about the jews escaping their oppressors is incorrect and obviously a fabrication of the truth. The list goes on and on and on.

I also have learned the bible. I used to know it frontwards and backwards as I studied it for nine years through my youth to a young adult. There are so many problems with the stories that it amazes me that people still believe them today.

Most of us on this site do not. We don't need faith when we can use reality to determine our positions. Faith is what you use when you can't prove something. If I can't prove something or don't have good reason to believe it, I don't. Saying I use faith is more offensive to me than calling me smug and dumb.

I must admit that there are times when I go climbing that I need to make a "leap of faith" for a rock hold. I can't see it, but from past experience I assume that it is still there.

I only hope that either my memory is correct with remembering it's location, that no one has damaged it from previous climbs or that a god hasn't come along and decided to play a trick on me by removing it.

How do you know whether or not the supernatural encompasses your reality? How could you?

Simple, people like making shit up and most people don't realize that is what they make up or buy. We value testing and verification. So we don't simply buy every sentence that comes out of a human mouth "just because".

I cant dumb that down any further for you.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

If you agree with me that "most gods" are crap, do yourself a favor and aim that logic at your own bullshit.

I didn't say crap, did I? They are myth, fables, legends, heroes, fictional, fantasy, or objects, important things in our lives like work, money, sex, ordinary things like knitting, reading, boating, exercise, sports, music, art, anything which anyone attributes might or venerates is a god. As well as supernatural, political, and religious relics. It is all the same, it all means the same thing.

Jehovah God didn't say to Moses: "I am just this supernatural dude so you can call me God, which means I am big and bad and mean and you made me up to control the people. Yeah, that will work."

He said I am your God. And before me (meaning that chronologically as well as in importance) there were no other gods. Not that there were no other gods because he warned the people not to have other gods. Because a God is anything you think is mighty or you venerate. I had to force myself not to put that in all caps.

Brian37 wrote:

But lucky for humanity you are the one person who has the cosmic red Bat Phone to the after life. Take a number bud. You are not the first or only person to attempt to sell snake oil. I am sorry you fell for it, and I hope you get out of it, but I wasn't born yesterday.

You go right on preaching to the choir, Brian, you go right on disbelieving. Don't you listen to the mean old theists!

THOR FUCKING DAMN IT DUMBASS!

I do not think all theists are mean, where the fuck do you get that pathetic view?

Getting angry at absurd claims does not mean I am going to go on a killing spree dumbass. It just means I am tired of the claims.

Go tell a gay man or a Christian living in Iran they shouldn't get "uppity" when the majority says stupid shit and incorporates it into law.

I think Galileo had every right to be pissed when he got imprisoned for merely saying that the earth rotated around the sun.

I think Susan B Anthony had every fucking right to bitch about not having the right to vote.

YOU STILL DON'T GET THE CONCEPT OF CONTEXT

This is a message board, it is not a government. You came here. I did not put a gun to your head to force you to come here.

Separate yourself from the words that come out of your mouth.

I DO HATE YOUR CLAIMS

I also hate soccer. I don't hate soccer fans.

Again, if you really want me to hate you, I will if you keep stupidly confusing my word choice falsely as some call to stick you in an oven.

You would never make it as a kicker in the NFL, they have to deal with the defense trying to take their head off along with the fans in the stands shouting and waving their hands.

I HATE YOUR CLAIMS, not you, YET, but if you keep this up, I will hate you the individual.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37